Four years ago in the Caribbean, it was said that the ICC got the World Cup it deserved. The 2007 tournament was a bloated, corporate, soulless sell-out of an event, infused with a noxious blend of controversy and apathy that turned the self-proclaimed Carnival of Cricket into a six-week wake. In Asia in 2011, however, the ICC got the World Cup that it needed, and that is not the same thing whatsoever. By the standards set in 2007, not to mention those in South Africa in 2003 and England in 1999, the 2011 tournament was a resounding triumph. In fact, an impromptu survey of approximately 1.2 billion people might well conclude that it was the best World Cup of all time. Admittedly some non-Indian observers might suggest those findings had been skewed a touch, but try telling that to the jubilant masses who spilled out of the Wankhede Stadium and onto Mumbai's Marine Drive on Saturday evening, or to anyone who shared the scenes of delirium in every street of every city, town and village of the world's second-most populous nation. The funny thing is, those 1.2 billion people are almost certainly right, but not necessarily for the reasons they might assume. Of the 10 World Cups to have taken place since 1975, none has come close to matching the narrative and drama of the tournament just completed - not even 1992, which is commonly cited as the pundits' pick to date. The greatest triumph of this edition lay not in the final outcome but in the journey that was required to reach that crowning moment, for the excellence of the entertainment was not simply an illusion glimpsed in the moment of India's victory. This would have been a World Cup to savour, irrespective of whether Gautam Gambhir and MS Dhoni had managed to turn the tide of the final in their country's favour. All of which makes Monday's mood-darkening decision in Mumbai so incredibly hard to countenance. The decision to slam the door shut on cricket's Associate nations - in particular Ireland, whose role in the narrative was so fundamental - and revert to a ten-team formula in 2015, makes a mockery of the spectacle we have just been privileged to witness. Ratnakar Shetty, the tournament director, admitted as much on the eve of the opening ceremony, when he let slip that the group-stage elimination of both India and Pakistan had torpedoed the entire event in 2007. Every available precaution was taken to ensure against a repeat of such a financial disaster, but when England tested the rejigged format to its absolute limits by threatening a group-stage exit at the hands of Ireland and Bangladesh, the doubts crept in. At the time England's struggles appeared to vindicate the tweaks that had been made, but at boardroom level it became clear that changing the locks alone wouldn't be enough to guard against future intrusions. It was time to roll out the razor wire. The decision has been shocking both for its timing and its finality. A sop has been offered for 2019, but by then Associate cricket will have been stagnant for a generation. Even George Dockrell will be in his late twenties and in all probability an England regular - why would or should he squander the prime of his career waiting? - while John Mooney, Kevin O'Brien and all the other heroes of Bangalore will have long since retired. And the fact that the ICC reached their decision a mere two days after the tournament's conclusion suggests that there was never a decision to be reached in the first place. It was simply a matter of announcing the fait accompli. The wider concern is the lack of concern. The public's initial reaction has been gratifyingly furious, but if ever there was a good day for the ICC to bury bad news, it is the Monday after India have won the World Cup, just as the IPL hype machine is beginning to grind into action. If enough righteous indignation is to be summoned to force the board into a change of heart, then a sizeable proportion of the 1.2 billion are going to have to speak out as well. But with some justification, they are a bit preoccupied right now. The tone of this article was never intended to be so downbeat. A remarkable event took place in Mumbai on Saturday, and quite rightly, the celebrations throughout India will resonate for weeks and months to come. Dhoni's decisive six in the final could yet become the most replayed shot in cricket's long history, while no one who claims to love the game can take anything other than delight in the decisive role that Sachin Tendulkar played in his sixth and (presumably?) farewell campaign. Moreover, the best team in the tournament emerged with the spoils, and while everyone loves an upset now and again, it's right that class should prevail in the end. But regardless of all that, the World Cup's postscript is one that ought to freeze the blood of all sports fans, irrespective of how much they've loved or loathed the campaign that preceded it. The most common complaint - particularly from those frequent flyers who took part in the six-week game of subcontinental hopscotch - was that the event was at least a fortnight too long, although that issue is one that is stipulated by the ICC's long-standing broadcasting deal with ESPN Star Sports, and hence a ten-team all-play-all format in 2015 will not lead to a significant reduction of matches or days on the road. What it will lead to is the loss of one of the key reasons behind the success of 2011. Ireland's victory over England, powered by O'Brien's astounding century, was a performance the like of which we may never again be privileged to witness - it was so unexpected, yet so majestic, that when the deal had been done, and Ireland really had chased 328 to beat England, having at one stage been 111 for 5, it seemed churlish to demean it as an upset. Not even Australia in their pomp could have won a game with more confidence. The knock-on effect was to electrify the permutations in Group B, where Bangladesh's fluctuations created a six-way tussle for four places. Though they wilted at the last against South Africa, their own story was a vital subplot in itself. It started with the youthful vigour they provided at the opening ceremony - a concept that tends to look laboured at sporting events where there's no Olympic flame to provide a focal point - and continued via the West Indies debacle and the subsequent stoning of the team bus, through to their own crowning moment against England. And all along the way, they - like the musically fuelled Sri Lankans - kept contributing the thrill of packed stadiums, a factor that had been so miserably absent throughout the previous World Cup. But in the end the whole narrative reverts back to India, and quite rightly so, because this was their year, and they earned it the hard way, soaking up the pressures and the doubts, as well as 28 years of World Cup failure. That they won the final in such style was magnificent, but their journey to that Sri Lanka showdown was every bit as gripping. Along the way they faced up to each of their major rivals, and there was not a dull contest among them. England battled to a tie, South Africa secured a thrilling run-chase, before Australia were dethroned and Pakistan denied in consecutive knock-out encounters. And then the party that kicked off on Saturday night was something to behold. If the purpose of sport is to fulfill a utilitarian brief of conferring the greatest pleasure for the greatest number, then the 2011 World Cup hit the spot like no other event in history. Sadly, however, there is so much more to it than that. Any sports fan with a moral compass, even one whose every wish has been granted this past week, will recognise that the tournament's true conclusion was signed and sealed not in the Wankhede Stadium, but in a Mumbai board-room, two days after the main event.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
The best World Cup of all time
Four years ago in the Caribbean, it was said that the ICC got the World Cup it deserved. The 2007 tournament was a bloated, corporate, soulless sell-out of an event, infused with a noxious blend of controversy and apathy that turned the self-proclaimed Carnival of Cricket into a six-week wake. In Asia in 2011, however, the ICC got the World Cup that it needed, and that is not the same thing whatsoever. By the standards set in 2007, not to mention those in South Africa in 2003 and England in 1999, the 2011 tournament was a resounding triumph. In fact, an impromptu survey of approximately 1.2 billion people might well conclude that it was the best World Cup of all time. Admittedly some non-Indian observers might suggest those findings had been skewed a touch, but try telling that to the jubilant masses who spilled out of the Wankhede Stadium and onto Mumbai's Marine Drive on Saturday evening, or to anyone who shared the scenes of delirium in every street of every city, town and village of the world's second-most populous nation. The funny thing is, those 1.2 billion people are almost certainly right, but not necessarily for the reasons they might assume. Of the 10 World Cups to have taken place since 1975, none has come close to matching the narrative and drama of the tournament just completed - not even 1992, which is commonly cited as the pundits' pick to date. The greatest triumph of this edition lay not in the final outcome but in the journey that was required to reach that crowning moment, for the excellence of the entertainment was not simply an illusion glimpsed in the moment of India's victory. This would have been a World Cup to savour, irrespective of whether Gautam Gambhir and MS Dhoni had managed to turn the tide of the final in their country's favour. All of which makes Monday's mood-darkening decision in Mumbai so incredibly hard to countenance. The decision to slam the door shut on cricket's Associate nations - in particular Ireland, whose role in the narrative was so fundamental - and revert to a ten-team formula in 2015, makes a mockery of the spectacle we have just been privileged to witness. Ratnakar Shetty, the tournament director, admitted as much on the eve of the opening ceremony, when he let slip that the group-stage elimination of both India and Pakistan had torpedoed the entire event in 2007. Every available precaution was taken to ensure against a repeat of such a financial disaster, but when England tested the rejigged format to its absolute limits by threatening a group-stage exit at the hands of Ireland and Bangladesh, the doubts crept in. At the time England's struggles appeared to vindicate the tweaks that had been made, but at boardroom level it became clear that changing the locks alone wouldn't be enough to guard against future intrusions. It was time to roll out the razor wire. The decision has been shocking both for its timing and its finality. A sop has been offered for 2019, but by then Associate cricket will have been stagnant for a generation. Even George Dockrell will be in his late twenties and in all probability an England regular - why would or should he squander the prime of his career waiting? - while John Mooney, Kevin O'Brien and all the other heroes of Bangalore will have long since retired. And the fact that the ICC reached their decision a mere two days after the tournament's conclusion suggests that there was never a decision to be reached in the first place. It was simply a matter of announcing the fait accompli. The wider concern is the lack of concern. The public's initial reaction has been gratifyingly furious, but if ever there was a good day for the ICC to bury bad news, it is the Monday after India have won the World Cup, just as the IPL hype machine is beginning to grind into action. If enough righteous indignation is to be summoned to force the board into a change of heart, then a sizeable proportion of the 1.2 billion are going to have to speak out as well. But with some justification, they are a bit preoccupied right now. The tone of this article was never intended to be so downbeat. A remarkable event took place in Mumbai on Saturday, and quite rightly, the celebrations throughout India will resonate for weeks and months to come. Dhoni's decisive six in the final could yet become the most replayed shot in cricket's long history, while no one who claims to love the game can take anything other than delight in the decisive role that Sachin Tendulkar played in his sixth and (presumably?) farewell campaign. Moreover, the best team in the tournament emerged with the spoils, and while everyone loves an upset now and again, it's right that class should prevail in the end. But regardless of all that, the World Cup's postscript is one that ought to freeze the blood of all sports fans, irrespective of how much they've loved or loathed the campaign that preceded it. The most common complaint - particularly from those frequent flyers who took part in the six-week game of subcontinental hopscotch - was that the event was at least a fortnight too long, although that issue is one that is stipulated by the ICC's long-standing broadcasting deal with ESPN Star Sports, and hence a ten-team all-play-all format in 2015 will not lead to a significant reduction of matches or days on the road. What it will lead to is the loss of one of the key reasons behind the success of 2011. Ireland's victory over England, powered by O'Brien's astounding century, was a performance the like of which we may never again be privileged to witness - it was so unexpected, yet so majestic, that when the deal had been done, and Ireland really had chased 328 to beat England, having at one stage been 111 for 5, it seemed churlish to demean it as an upset. Not even Australia in their pomp could have won a game with more confidence. The knock-on effect was to electrify the permutations in Group B, where Bangladesh's fluctuations created a six-way tussle for four places. Though they wilted at the last against South Africa, their own story was a vital subplot in itself. It started with the youthful vigour they provided at the opening ceremony - a concept that tends to look laboured at sporting events where there's no Olympic flame to provide a focal point - and continued via the West Indies debacle and the subsequent stoning of the team bus, through to their own crowning moment against England. And all along the way, they - like the musically fuelled Sri Lankans - kept contributing the thrill of packed stadiums, a factor that had been so miserably absent throughout the previous World Cup. But in the end the whole narrative reverts back to India, and quite rightly so, because this was their year, and they earned it the hard way, soaking up the pressures and the doubts, as well as 28 years of World Cup failure. That they won the final in such style was magnificent, but their journey to that Sri Lanka showdown was every bit as gripping. Along the way they faced up to each of their major rivals, and there was not a dull contest among them. England battled to a tie, South Africa secured a thrilling run-chase, before Australia were dethroned and Pakistan denied in consecutive knock-out encounters. And then the party that kicked off on Saturday night was something to behold. If the purpose of sport is to fulfill a utilitarian brief of conferring the greatest pleasure for the greatest number, then the 2011 World Cup hit the spot like no other event in history. Sadly, however, there is so much more to it than that. Any sports fan with a moral compass, even one whose every wish has been granted this past week, will recognise that the tournament's true conclusion was signed and sealed not in the Wankhede Stadium, but in a Mumbai board-room, two days after the main event.
Simons calls Munaf Patel the unsung hero
Bowling coach Eric Simons has called Munaf Patel the unsung hero of India's World Cup victory, saying the high degree of technical skills that India's bowling attack possessed made up for its lack of express pace all through the tournament.
After the World Cup win, as the Indian team made their euphoric victory lap around the Wankhede, Munaf and Simons, who had missed the lap, were found outside the group, talking and laughing. Munaf, Simons said, had been one of the most inspirational stories he had encountered.
Munaf would not have been an automatic choice for the playing XI, had injury not ruled out Praveen Kumar from the squad before the start of the World Cup. Praveen had until then formed, along with Ashish Nehra, the back-up unit for Zaheer Khan. "We had singled out the bowlers for the last 3-4 series and Praveen's injury had been a setback for us as he was part of our plans," Simons said.
It was Munaf, Simons said, who had given the bowling unit reassurance when he arrived, with both an awareness of his own skills and his ability to adapt. "Munaf is one of the unsung heroes of the World Cup for us - he stepped in and played a vital part for us, after we lost Praveen and Ashish suffered from injuries during the tournament. Munaf has learnt to understand his bowling and stuck to his game plan taking some crucial wickets." Munaf was India's third-highest wicket-taker in the World Cup behind Zaheer and Yuvraj Singh with 11 victims.
Munaf's wicket-to-wicket line and ability to generate bounce off the Indian tracks made him hard to get away by opposition batsman. Despite the pounding received by the bowlers in the early half of the tournament, "Munaf never once doubted himself or what he could offer the team," Simons said. "His work ethic is enormous; he has a very strong and steady head on his shoulders and calmness in any situation. He gave Zaheer the freedom to bowl very freely and aggressively." Simons said in his 15 months with the team, Munaf had become a "close friend."
When he came into the Indian set-up from South Africa, Simons said that it had been his job to "bring a different outlook to the bowling unit, not to tell them how to bowl, but just offer ideas about what options they could take." The main areas of focus during the World Cup, the bowlers understood, would be the advantage of familiar conditions and bowling to their strengths. "There was a great deal of talent in the bowling line-up and we knew that our plans had to be based around their skills. What happens is that a lot of time people make plans for bowlers that really don't suit them."
The bowlers understood that building pressure through containment could be made to play as important a role as taking wickets, particularly if they could give the batsmen a 100 runs less to chase when batting second. Simons said, "We spoke a lot about bowling partnerships, that if you weren't getting wickets, building pressure on one side could get wickets at the other." India's plans were flexible but the bowlers had talked about the different venues and batsmen they would be bowling to, working out possibilities of "lines, angles and variations of pace" that could come into play. "We talked about the fields that could be set to their bowling, who had to stay slightly deeper for the singles, who had to field where.
"My admiration for the guys grew and I have been very impressed by what they can do in conditions that do not suit them at all. It is what Indian bowlers have to do to succeed here. We had a high degree of technical skills in our side, which showed that you didn't need a bowler of express pace to make a difference." It is why, he said, that when overseas pace bowlers travelled to India, they looked what he described as "less daunting."
Zaheer had become one of the best practitioners of his art in the world according to Simons. In the months leading up to the World Cup, he had developed the slower slow ball that wobbles, and works particularly well against left-handers. In ESPNcricinfo commentary during the World Cup, it was first described as the 'bare knuckle ball', as it comes off the knuckle and rather than spin on its axis, wobbles over a couple of times. It has got the better of a few batsmen in the World Cup. Simons said that the team calls it the 'knuckle ball.' "Zaheer began working on it during the World Twenty20 in the West Indies and was ready to use it during the World Cup." The knuckle ball, Simons explained, could not be spotted by the batsmen through the grip and the bowler could even use arm-rotation at his normal speed to be able to bowl it.
About Harbhajan Singh's role in the tournament, in which he took nine wickets, but bowled at an economy rate of 4.48 Simons said, that the off-spinner, who "wears his heart on his sleeve and wants to perform" was affected at not taking wickets, in the first half of the tournament but hit his stride in the knock outs. "Early on he was frustrated at not getting more wickets and that is natural but we realised as a strike bowler for our team all opposition batsmen would see him as a threat and try to block out, which is what happened. But he got more aggressive in the second half of the tournament, and found when batsmen were forced to try and go after him, he took important wickets."
Given the future calendar for Indian cricket which involves tours to West Indies, England and Australia, Simons said he believed India would have to both rotate their best bowlers to keep them ready for the big events and also refresh their bench strength to get bowlers like Jaidev Unadkat and Umesh Yadav, for example, playing enough at the highest level to do the job when they had to be suddenly called in.
Weak middle order cost South Africa - Kirsten
Garry Kirsten former South Africa opening batsman and India coach, believes that South Africa's early World Cup exit was caused by their fragile middle order. South Africa crashed out of the tournament in the quarter-finals after a 49-run defeat to New Zealand. They failed to chase 222, after losing eight wickets for 64 runs.
"The most important thing in those games is to have an experienced middle order," Kirsten said in Mumbai, where his stint as India coach ended with World Cup victory. "I just felt that they fell short in the middle order in this World Cup."
South Africa's middle and lower middle order regularly consisted of JP Duminy, Faf du Plessis and Robin Peterson who collectively scored 426 runs in 21 innings at the tournament. Together, they have played just 135 ODIs. Morne van Wyk and Johan Botha were also used, but neither were able to firm up what became known as a soft middle order.
Daniel Vettori admitted that New Zealand thought that if they could get South Africa's top four of Graeme Smith, Hashim Amla, Jacques Kallis and AB de Villiers out, they could exert pressure on a frail middle order. Former South Africa coach Mickey Arthur also blamed the middle order for the team's exit and said that the chokers tag still affects them and will only leave them when they win an ICC event.
Kirsten also thinks the term "chokers" had a negative effect on the team, although like outgoing coach Corrie van Zyl, he blamed the media for perpetuating the word. "It's tough what they are going through. You guys [the media] really spin it big that they are chokers. It is not a nice word to be labelled. I understand opposition media using it to their advantage but the worry is when the South African media put it out there."
Having played in three World Cups for South Africa, including the 1999 event where the term chokers was coined, Kirsten feels a certain empathy for the what the current crop of players are going through. "I think [Graeme] Smith said after the game that they lost that ,'We do not know [what goes wrong], we are trying our best and we doing what we can. We want to get over this but we don't know how.' Please understand it's not easy. I feel sad for them."
Despite their recent troubles Kirsten has no doubt about the quality of the South African side. "They are a great cricket team and they will continue to be." Kirsten played 101 Tests and 185 ODIs for South Africa and is widely considered to be among the favourites for the position of head coach, which van Zyl vacated at the end of the tournament. South Africa are set to announce their shortlist of six names for the position in the next few days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)